[Lnc-business] Contract with campaign?

Mon Aug 29 01:08:25 EDT 2016

I think a basic contract would be wise. Information sharing and that
kind of stuff. Seems like that would be a good place to start. We don't
have to go crazy on it. We shouldn't micromanage the campaign anyway.
But when the campaign ends, if all the data ends up with Repubs instead
of us, I'll be very disappointed. 

---
Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
LPKY Judicial Committee 

On 2016-08-29 00:29, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: 

> Our ballot access is priceless and we just gave it up. For some it is worth it. It isn't to me unless we grow the Party. This isn't the time to be swept up in emotion or sentimentalism about this historic election season. Our duty is to this Party. Not to any campaign except as it serves this Party. 
> 
> I am glad we are thinking of this now for 2020. IF there was some contract (and it should be weighted to us AFAIC, they are asking for our hand after all), and a candidate refused, I would hope that delegates would consider that a huge black mark. I certainly would. 
> 
> -- 
> 
> IN LIBERTY, 
> CARYN ANN HARLOS 
> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org 
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado [1] 
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus [2] 
> 
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Daniel Wiener <wiener at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> Attached below are some emails I exchanged with Nick back in February on the subject of a Presidential Campaign Contract. Unfortunately nothing got done back then. What I would have liked to have happened is that the LNC should have a adopted a very reasonable draft contract, which did not try to extract every last ounce of advantage from our eventual Presidential candidate. We would have then pre-signed the contract and urged all the Presidential candidates to do likewise prior to the convention. If they refused, delegates could have taken that into account. If they objected to some provisions and insisted on certain changes, we could have considered those specific objections and if necessary revised the contract. 
> 
> Instead we have the current situation: Still no signed contract three months after the convention. 50-state ballot access is almost complete, and we've lost most of our leverage. The Johnson/Weld campaign is accumulating a hundred thousand donors. Will we have access to all that information? What do we do if they refuse to provide it to us? 
> 
> Dan Wiener 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: DANIEL WIENER <wiener at alum.mit.edu>
> Date: Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 10:17 PM
> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Proposed Presidential Campaign Contract
> To: "lnc-business at hq.lp.org" <lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
> Cc: Oliver Hall <oliverbhall at gmail.com>
> 
> The Libertarian Party's database of membership and contact information is one of our "crown jewels". It is highly proprietary data which would cause us enormous damage if it were to somehow leak into public view or hostile hands. That's why we have to insist on the use of a bonded third-party mail house, thus shielding it even from our Presidential candidate, to avoid the risk that some campaign staffer or outside contractor might accidentally or intentionally compromise its security. 
> 
> But the same logic applies in reverse. A prominent person seeking our Presidential nomination may start with his own large following, accumulated over many years via business or political or celebrity status. That data constitutes his own "crown jewels", and its security is just as important to him as ours is to us. Why should he entrust it to the LP? If we want to market the LP to his pre-existing list, we should have to go through the same hoops (e.g., bonded third-party mailing house) that we demand when he wants to market to our pre-existing list. 
> 
> Hey, if a candidate is willing to gift the LP his pre-existing list, that would be wonderful. But it shouldn't be a contractual condition. 
> 
> And yes, we bring ballot status to the table. But the candidate brings his presumed political skills to the table, along with a willingness to campaign full time as our Presidential nominee. That's the more proper comparison. 
> 
> It boils down to this: We need to propose a Presidential Agreement which most if not all of the Presidential candidates, along with objective observers, will consider reasonable and fair to both sides, not one which disproportionately skews towards the Libertarian Party. That's the only way that we'll persuade the 2016 candidates to buy into it, and that's the only way that we'll be able to convince the convention delegates to add this requirement to the Bylaws for future elections. 
> 
> Dan Wiener 
> 
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 10:40 PM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair at lp.org> wrote:
> Yes, a candidate comes to the table with a list that may have been
> developed over some period before he/she announced for the LP
> nomination. But the LP comes to the table with ballot access earned
> over 45 years. We should get the whole list if the candidate gets our
> whole list.
> 
> All inquiries about the Libertarian Party Presidential candidate
> should be given to the LP for an opportunity to convert them to a LP
> member, regardless of whether the inquirer asks specifically about the
> LP or not. This should not preclude the candidate from also
> responding to the inquiry, or even for there being a day or two
> between the candidate's response to the inquiry and the LP's response.
> 
> -Nick
> 
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Daniel Wiener <wiener at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> After reviewing the proposed Presidential Agreement which Nick sent out earlier tonight, I have several suggested edits: 
> 
> 3(C)(II): 
> 
> UPON SIGNING THIS AGREEMENT, THE CANDIDATES AND CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE SHALL PROMPTLY PROVIDE TO THE LNC THEIR "CAMPAIGN" LISTS, I.E., THEIR MOST CURRENT LISTS OF CONTRIBUTORS, INQUIRIES AND VOLUNTEERS AND THE MAILING AND E-MAIL ADDRESSES AND TELEPHONE NUMBERS OF THOSE PERSONS, AND THEIR "MEDIA" LISTS, I.E., THEIR MOST CURRENT LISTS OF MEDIA CONTACTS AND THE MAILING AND E-MAIL ADDRESSES AND TELEPHONE NUMBERS OF THOSE PERSONS. THIS REQUIREMENT SHALL ONLY APPLY TO NAMES ON THOSE LISTS WHICH WERE OBTAINED AFTER THE CANDIDATES ANNOUNCED THAT THEY WERE SEEKING THE LP NOMINATION. THE CANDIDATES AND CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE SHALL PROVIDE TO THE LNC PROMPTLY AS AND WHEN THEY ARE RECEIVED, AND AT LEAST WEEKLY, ANY ADDITIONS OR UPDATES TO THOSE LISTS. THE CANDIDATES AND CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE INTEND THAT THESE LISTS SHALL BE ADDED TO AND MERGED WITH THE LISTS OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE LNC, SO THAT THE LNC SHALL HAVE THE UNRESTRICTED OWNERSHIP AND USE OF THE LISTS IN THE FUTURE IN ORDER TO ADVANCE THE
INTERESTS OF THE LP. NOTWITHSTANDING THE FOREGOING, THE CANDIDATES SHALL RETAIN A LIMITED LICENSE TO USE THOSE LISTS FOLLOWING THE CAMPAIGN FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL NONCOMMERCIAL USE INSOFAR AS SUCH USE DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH LIBERTARIAN PARTY OBJECTIVES. 
> 
> 3(C)(5): 
> 
> THE CANDIDATES AND CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE SHALL DIRECT ALL INQUIRIES ABOUT THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY FROM INTERESTED VOTERS, MEDIA REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS, TO TELEPHONE NUMBERS, MAILING AND E-MAIL ADDRESSES AND PERSONS DESIGNATED BY THE LNC. 
> 
> My rationale is that I don't think it's reasonable to demand a Candidate's entire list of contacts and supporters, many of which were accumulated long before that Candidate sought the LP nomination. But once a Candidate has announced a run, all subsequent contact information should be fair game for the LP. 
> 
> It's also unreasonable to limit the Candidate's use of such data to "personal non-commercial use". Candidates should be able to freely utilize all of the data which they themselves collected, unless there is a direct conflict with LP objectives (e.g., using that data to help another political party or other non-LP candidates). 
> 
> Finally, Candidates and their Campaign Committees should be able to respond to inquiries about themselves without having to redirect those inquiries to the LP, unless the inquiry is specifically about the LP. 
> Dan Wiener
>> 
>> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair at lp.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> As mentioned, the attached contract incorporates almost all of the
>>> proposals suggested by Mr. Hall.
>>> 
>>> -Nick
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org [3]

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org [3]

 -- 

IN LIBERTY, 
CARYN ANN HARLOS 
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) -
Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org 
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado [4] 
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus [5] 

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org [3] 

Links:
------
[1] http://www.lpcolorado.org/
[2] http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/
[3] http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
[4] http://www.lpcolorado.org
[5] http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160829/07fe1ae0/attachment-0002.html>